ABSTRACT
@#Objective To explore the effect of 16F gastric tube on pain relief in postoperative lung cancer patients. Methods A total of 118 lung cancer patients were treated with radical resection of lung cancer in our hospital between January 2015 and May 2016. The patients were assigned into two groups: a 16F gastric tube group (16F group, 60 patients, 30 males and 30 females at age of 41-73 (52.13±7.83) years and a 28F drainage tube group (28F group, 58 patients, 25 males and 33 females at age of 45-75 (55.62±4.27) years. Clinical effects were compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistical difference in drainage time (4.47±1.03 d vs. 4.24±1.16 d, P=0.473), drainage amount (560.37±125.00 ml vs. 656.03±132.45 ml, P=0.478), incidences of pneumothorax (5/60 vs. 2/58, P=0.439), pleural effusion (6/60 vs. 3/58, P=0.522), and subcutaneous emphysema (3/60 vs. 1/58, P=0.635) between the two groups (P>0.05). The pain caused by the drainage tube in the16F group was less than that in the 28F drainage tube group with a statistical difference (F=4 242.996, P<0.001). The frequency of taking analgesics in the 16F group was significantly less than that in the 28F group (12/60 vs. 26/58, P<0.001). Conclusion The effects of draining pleural effusions and promoting lung recruitment are similar between the 16F group and the 28F group. However, the wound pain caused by 16F gastric tube is significantly less than that by 28F drainage tube.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: We have conducted this study to assess (1) the existence of prevention programmes for AR as developed by professional and health care organizations in Asia- Pacific countries; (2) any discrepancies in local guidelines in comparison to ARIA, or within and across these countries. Study design: Web search study. Methodology: We have conducted a study using Web search in accordance with the perspective of physicians or patients for the relevant prevention and pharmacotherapy guidelines in the management of AR as developed by professional and health care organizations in Asia-Pacific countries/regions. Results: National allergy (AR and/or asthma) preventive programs are found in only 6 out of 17 (22.2%) countries (excluding Japan and South Korea). There exist several aspects of discrepancies in existing educational programs such as in (1) allergic disease (asthma or AR) that the guidelines focus on; (2) targeted age groups (children or adults); and (3) breadth and depth of coverage, such as for particular inhalant allergens or food allergies only. Based on the information provided by MIMS website (updated in 2011 by UBM Medica, London, United Kingdom) and the MIMS proven by the country’s local health authority, controversies exist in recommended minimum age, doses and potential side-effects of many commonly used 2nd-generation antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Conclusion: This is the first study that demonstrates discrepancies and a lack of public education programmes for AR prevention and management in Asia-Pacific countries/regions.